NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (MAX @ Nov 12, 2008 -> 01:47 AM) How is someone who is in college and working their ass off to pay for it going to find an extra 100 hours to work for free? No one is forcing you, and its not for free, its for $4000 towards college.

Political discussions should take place in the Filibuster forum, in SLaM. Not in here. Any further political posts will be moved. If you do want to talk politics, please do head over into the Buster. Just make sure you read, agree to and acknowledge in the MUST READ thread in there first. There are some great discussions going on in there. But this thread needs to be about baseball.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 04:52 PM) How his Obama himself expressing his distrust and dislike of lobbyists bats*** fring anything! Obama repeatedly emphasized the problems of lobbyists in politics. Made it a point to show how it was bad every time McCain even shook the hand of one as if the lobbying cooties were contagious. He made a huge showing of giving back donations from lobbyists because “Giving back these donations is part of our best efforts to ensure we stay true to our commitment to not take money from federal lobbyists,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman. http://tinyurl.com/24vkmt Both Barack Obama and John Edwards have fulminated against "lobbyists" and "insiders," and claimed that they will end "business as usual" in Washington if elected president. How is picking a former lobbyist with ties to a current lobbying firm in any way ending business asusual. http://tinyurl.com/2qmjv7 Hell, Alexrod is a lobbyist in all but name. Only some very loose rules in illinois lets him get away with not registering as one for ComEd. Yes, every 'promise' he makes and then changes on, before he even gets into office, i am going to talk about. Do I think he was going to change everything? No, I thought he would change almost nothing. But he SAID he was going to do a heck of alot of hopey and changy things. We'll see. Dems had 8 years to play all nice, and all they did was a little bit after 9/11, because they would have looked like uncaring asses if they didn't play nice for just a little while. Apparently we aren't going to see eye to eye here. I personally see Obama expressing reservations about involving lobbyists in anything financial or policy, but also realizing that you simply cannot have NO lobbyists across the board. Again, he and his administration can't change everything, but they will change some things, and that's what I expected all along.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:47 PM) But...it's a real, real risk to keep Lieberman at a committee that has the job of oversight of the White House. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. You know, I wasn't sure at first, but I am now thinking that Obama and Reid (gasp) are right on this one. If Lieberman is just an opportunist looking for whatever benefits him, then hey, make use of that. Use his influence, cross-aisle abilities, and bulldog nature in your favor. Seems like a smart move to me.

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 12:09 PM) You know, I've been listening to bats*** fringe complainers (who complain about EVERYTHING the other side does) for the past eight years. I think you can expect Obama to treated in the same fashion whenever and wherever possible. That's certainly one way to go. If you want to be like the screaming liberal fringe, I can't stop you. Or, we can have some good discussions as the new Presidency unfolds, like we did about the volunteerism thing over the past few days. Some of us voted for Bush in 2000 and gave him every chance to succeed, before becoming cynical about him.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) Logan is not out of options, so he'll almost certainly start in Charlotte IMO. MMac is actually the big issue in the bullpen. The Sox aren't going to want to buy his contract out and at the same time let him walk for nothing, but he's out of options so they can't send him down. If they go with a 7 man pen again, I think he winds up by default being #7 until they can do something with him. I'd bet big money that the Sox are shopping MacD, hoping to get something, anything for him.

CKnolls- Please, again, source your articles. Unless you wrote those yourself. Just provide a link or credit or something. We need you (and everyone) to do that.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 10:00 AM) Obama railed against lobbyists, and thier influence in campaigns. Iguess you can sleectivly not remember that, but every time it came up that someone doing anything for McCain was or is a lobbyist, that's all we heard about is how they will have no voice in shaping his administration. So how is picking this guy, who was a lobbyist and who's firm are huge lobbyists, to pick your FCC head somehow magically 'different'? Ok, he is ot a lobbyist 'now'. but he was, and his firm is. And he is nothign BUT a Washington insider, so again, how is that 'change'? You seem to want to apply the bats*** fringe complainers (who complain about EVERYTHING the other side does) to the Obama campaign as a whole, and to any of us who voted for him. I really think it was ever Obama's intention, or his words, to have some sort of ban on any and all current and former lobbyists having any role whatsoever in his administration. That would be incredibly silly and impractical. Also, do you think anyone in their right mind honestly thought that Obama would change EVERYTHING? No one said anything of the sort here, and Obama's campaign certainly didn't. There are only so many things that can be changed. Yes, Obama's main theme was change. Yes, I think he can indeed change a number of important things. No, no one I have seen has ever said that Obama will change every single damn thing. Are you going to flip out if Obama walks the same path from Marine 1 to the White House that Bush did?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:48 AM) Yup. It's always different. Not going to bother reading my post, eh? I said nothing of that sort. Nothing is "different". I asked legitimate questions. You don't want to answer them, hey, that's fine. But your cop out answer isn't even relevant to my post.

So I saw this headline on CNN.com: Conservatives didn't lose election, GOP did I clicked the link, thinking I was going to read another laughable social conservative telling us that McCain lost because he was too moderate, blah blah blah. Turns out, I assumed wrong, which is why I am posting it here in the GOP forum. This is actually a fairly soild (if a bit superficial) editorial by SC's GOP governor. He says what is missing is what he considers the core conservative values: small government and individual freedoms. Bravo, governor. You get it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) OK, I read that wrong. he is heading the FCC transition team, almost as bad. It still shows how lobbyists are playing a big role in Obama's admin, despite his saying that they woulnd't have a place at thetable. The more things change, the more they stay the same. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10084046...s&subj=news Well for one thing, I don't recall Obama ever saying that no lobbyist would have a seat at the table (maybe he did and I simply don't remember). I think he's made it a theme that lobbyist wouldn't dictate policy, but I think its near impossible to assemble teams like this without some folks in it who have done some lobbying. Second, reading that article, it seems like this guy is pretty ideal for the job. I'm not sure what the uproar is about. Third, this guy is not a registered lobbyist, again per that article. He was once a lobbyist in 2001.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 11, 2008 -> 07:31 AM) Yep, because it's "bipartisan" and we're "above all that crap" now, right? The hatred is just disgusting. You know, the funny thing is, Bush and Obama ARE being bipartisan here. Its just some of the wingbat supporters, calling names and launching off on not-even-announced changes, that are sending out the flak.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 10:42 PM) How about the head of the FCC? And in a breaking of a campaign promise to keep lobbyists out of his government, he wants to appoint one to head the FCC. One that has a fondness for the so-called Fairness Doctrine. DC insider Henry Rivera, a former Democratic FCC commissioner, and partner in the lobbyist law firm Wiley Rein, is being picked by Team Obama. While not currently registered as an active lobbyist, he has been engaged as such as recent as 2001. His law firm is also heavily involved in efforts to lobby on telecom issues. Rivera’s law firm is also the former home of Kevin Martin, the current FCC chairman, and is arguably one of the schmooziest lobbyist telecom legal firms in Washington. They employ several former FCC commissioners as well as a significant number of former FCC employees. Of course, Rivera and the other lawyers at the firm are not the only people at the FCC, or other governement agencies, to leave government for high-paying lobbyist jobs, but how is this 'change'? Looks like just another Washington insider, with an agenda. He doesn't even have a cabinet yet. No way he has picked the FCC chair at this point.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 06:10 PM) A Weekly YouTube Address? 3rd to Last Graff: Not that the audio from the YouTube address couldn't be used on the radio, but the idea is very interesting. I think we are seeing a lot of indications that Obama plans to do some significant rebranding of the Presidency. Hopefully, he can put some real actions behind the marketing.

Sergio is playing winter ball for Cangrejeros de Santurce of the PR League. We also have an interview out to him, and hope to get his responses back soon.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 02:33 PM) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...refer=worldwide of course. it's only 2 trillion dollars. Jesus. They lent out another $1T+ OUTSIDE of the TARP protections, and aren't disclosing anything about it? I mean, I can see how we may not be able to immediately know all collateral in detail, but NO information at all? And they are doing this outside the regs? Wow. I mean, really, wow.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) Truth is the Democrats pushed for this bill hard and WERE in charge of the house and senate. On another note, Dems push for automaker bailout. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1fc10c0e-ae63-11...0077b07658.html and a bigger AIG bailout and credit card bailout all to fix a banking debacle they played a major role in. if you think the Democrats are any better on this stuff you're fooling yourself. He wasn't talking about the bill - he was talking about what amounts to an XO by SecTreas. Not that I am defending the bill OR the action, nor am I saying the GOP is any worse than the Dems on this. On this general subject, I don't see one party having screwed up significantly more than the other.

On this topic, it should be noted how well the transition of power is going so far. Bush seems to be pushing hard for a smooth, complete transition. This is a legacy effort, and it may end up being added to his short list of positive accomplishments.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 12:37 PM) I can count them on one hand I think. Many of the things he did right are cancelled out by something else. - Sweeping, long-overdue overhauls of the intel community - Did a whole lot for people with AIDS in Africa - Leadership post 9-11 - eventually unraveled this but I will spot him this anyway ...I think that's about it actually. I started a thread like this a year or two ago in here - list ONLY positive things Bush has accomplished. Some others I remember coming up: --The designation of that large protected nature reserve in the Pacific --His tax cuts, at least some of them anyway (that one is of course up for some debate)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 12:28 PM) What in the world? Story about a meeting 4 years ago, where the current Decider met the man who would eventually replace him. Not sure what's so odd about that. Sounds about like what I'd expect from the both, except for maybe the whole hand sanitizer thing. I read this originally in Obama's book, and it didn't strike me as nearly as interesting as the actual meal before and it's conversations.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:59 AM) I guess I object the most to drawing Nixon into this, I think parallels to Carter or Bush the Greater would be better comparisons to Bush the Lesser. It wasn't meant as an overall comparison - just illustrating how low he is in approval ratings by way of the 2nd worst.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 11:49 AM) Unfair, and the comparison is even worse. This is, IMHO, and opinion on the current state of the economy, and not really Bush. I'll repeat again, President receive too much credit and too much blame. While I agree that Presidents get far too much blame/credit for the economy, the reality is that this administration has been an abject disaster on so many things that its hard to count.

Not sure where this goes, so, here goes... Bush's disapproval ratings are highest... ever. Higher than Nixon, post Watergate.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:47 AM) Good. I hope the media who probably hasnt seen him play even once lowers his value so we can sign him for cheaper. Could be good. Just need to keep in mind, he's a project. Can they get him to give the effort necessary to succeed? Sometimes people like that are just not capable of doing so. Other times, they "figure it out". If he can be had for cheap, then heck, give him a shot. Just don't think that his talent will necessarily translate to results, when it seems he has a rep for dogging it.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Nov 10, 2008 -> 09:17 AM) Given that most of DHL's operations were already outsourced to UPS, it sorta makes sense. They aren't discontinuing US Operations to my understanding, they were discontinuing point to point domestic delivery (US to US service). Yes, US Domestic services to be discontinued. And since their internal workload will be given to UPS for international business, they are essentially getting out of the US business.